Did the Browning Hi-Power enter the XM-9 trial? How would you feel if the U.S Military started replacing the M9 Berettas with the FN Browning Hi-Power 9x19mm?

Quoted: Did the Browning Hi-Power enter the XM-9 trial? How would you feel if the U.S Military started replacing the M9 Berettas with the FN Browning Hi-Power 9x19mm?

It's a good pistol too.  I just got a beretta and really like it!!  They are two very different designs but I think both are good pistols.

Because the BHP was of antiquated design of the early 20th century.

And the Beretta feels like a full size military handgun, big, heavy, and clunky.  It shoots well though, but so does every other well-built pistols

The XM9 trials specifically called for double-action.

Browning, or was it FN?,entered a double action variant, but I don't think it went too far in the trails.

Quoted: The XM9 trials specifically called for double-action.

+1, big mistake.  Double action auto, an excellent solution to a problem that doesn't exist now and didn't exist then.  

Quoted: Because the BHP was of antiquated design of the early 20th century. And the Beretta feels like a full size military handgun, big, heavy, and clunky.  It shoots well though, but so does every other well-built pistols

Antiquated?

Quoted: Did the Browning Hi-Power enter the XM-9 trial? How would you feel if the U.S Military started replacing the M9 Berettas with the FN Browning Hi-Power 9x19mm?

The BHP is a good pistol, but the CZ75b does everything it does and its a bit more ergonomic. Hell, the BHP and CZ75b are basically the same gun as the CZ is a modification and update of the basic BHP action. But unfortunately, a gun that was being made on the wrong side of the iron curtain would never have had a chance or even be submitted in the 80's. Now if the XM-9 trials were being held today it might have stood a good chance of beating the Beretta.

Quoted: Quoted: Did the Browning Hi-Power enter the XM-9 trial? How would you feel if the U.S Military started replacing the M9 Berettas with the FN Browning Hi-Power 9x19mm? The BHP is a good pistol, but the CZ75b does everything it does and its a bit more ergonomic. Hell, the BHP and CZ75b are basically the same gun as the CZ is a modification and update of the basic BHP action. But unfortunately, a gun that was being made on the wrong side of the iron curtain would never have had a chance or even be submitted in the 80's. Now if the XM-9 trials were being held today it might have stood a good chance of beating the Beretta.

I like both of  these pistols.  The BHP is slimmer and is single action only.  The CZ is "almost " as good as the BHP.  I say that in jest.  I've owned many different models of each and I can say that the CZ is as good as a BHP.   I like both of them....but I am partial to the BHP.  I own a Silver Chrome Belgium model and it is one of the finest handguns I've ever owned. This is the second one of these I've owned. The first was stolen. I think the BHP is a more ergonomic than the CZ (with Hogue grips).
I put Hogue on both guns and I found the CZ75 a bit thicker.  To each his own. Can't go wrong with either gun!!!

thats easy

b/c berretta undercut the bid for the new M9

Quoted: Browning, or was it FN?,entered a double action variant, but I don't think it went too far in the trails.

Anyone know why?

Quoted: The FN P35 was entered in the original JSSAP tests, which predated the first XM9 trails, and was run by Jack Robbins and the Air Force. It did poorly IIRC according to their posted results, but I do not recall exactly which tests it failed. (JSSAP also designed, with Hornady's help, a new FMJ bullet that I still believe is a better one than the RN variety) Mucho politics, money, and backstabbing went on during the various trials, but IMO the best two guns won...the M92F and the Sig 226. While I am a big HP fan, I have never seen a P35 out of the box and totally unmodified that could hold a candle to either the 92 or 226 in reliability. Some decent history (without many details on test procedures) here... www.coolgunsite.com/comm_pistols/beretta92.htm

Funny.  I've never had one of my three BHP's have any kind of malfunction over the past ten years that I've owned BHP's.

Part of the reason for the Beretta is that we needed a couple of bases in Italy.  We scratched their back, they scratched ours.

Quoted: Part of the reason for the Beretta is that we needed a couple of bases in Italy.  We scratched their back, they scratched ours.

I read that, too, and it's validated by the fact that the SEALs and other special operators use other handguns (e.g., Sig and HK).  The hype around the CZ P-01 is pretty impressive, but it all goes back to CZ press releases (their marketing department must be almost as good as HK's )

Quoted: Quoted: Because the BHP was of antiquated design of the early 20th century. And the Beretta feels like a full size military handgun, big, heavy, and clunky.  It shoots well though, but so does every other well-built pistols Antiquated?

He's saying 'relatively'.  

Burro-crats seem to forget that 2+2=4 and always will.  But when somebody comes along later on with '2.8+1.2' its suddenly cool.

The Beretta M9 is one of the best defensive handguns availible. Its a simple, proven and robust design which allows for an extremely reliable and accurate weapon. The only issues with the M9 have been inferior steel in early Italian slides, which has long since been fixed and poor magazines made by Checkmate. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Beretta's adoption. Some think that they are smarter than everyone associated with JSSAP, NATO and the DOD and maintain that the 1911 in .45 is optimum for modern combat. Its a great handgun and it served well, but its no longer ideal for modern combat. Some might say that elite units are using a finite number of 1911's in WW4....I would remind those people that these units have almost

unlimited restrictions/resources when it comes to selecting weapons and personal preference counts in this instance. What these units do is hardly an indication of what the big army will do or should do. Im not sure why anyone would want to use a single stack 1911 when you could use a Mk23, but you should defend your life with whatever you feel comfortable with. The 1911 served well, but its time has come and gone. Nobody was trying to put Eisenhower back on the front lines after WWII....I am a staunch supporter of the 9mm cartridge. When used with modern JHP ammo, its an extremely effective manstopper. With FMJ bullets, its inferior to .45 ACP....though shot placement is more important than caliber. That being said, 9mm FMJ is adequate for modern

military sidearms. Actually hitting a moving target with a handgun during the fog of war is a very difficult feat. Using the pistol to provide suppressive fire so you can flee is a more effective use of the weapon. At point blank ranges, 9mm FMJ bullets have acceptible lethality....which is the only distance you are likely to connect at, they are just fine. Obviously a .50 AE provides better lethality, but the 9mm is an excellent compromise for regular soldiers. There was also the insinuation that the Italian govt pressured the DoD to adopt the M9 over the Sig or loose Aviano AFB*one of the few stealth capable bases and strategically significant even today*. They were eventually vindicated in court, but I find it suspect that they were able to under bid SiG by 1.00.

Irreguardless, the M9 has performed well in combat, despite debates surrounding caliber. Its adoption by many nations further supports its excellency. Opinion,nostalgia and enthusiasm don't make for an effective weapon. The question of the M9 is answered by its performance. Replacing it with another 9mm handgun would be senseless.....The military likes it so much that it has been upgraded to the M9A1 which will likely serve for years to come.....

The bean counters figured that by the late half of the 20th century, they needed to replace the "aging" 1911 design with a new auto, and the BHP was but a small brother to the 1911.

So much for their thinking.

Quoted: The Beretta M9 is one of the best defensive handguns availible. Its a simple, proven and robust design which allows for an extremely reliable and accurate weapon. The only issues with the M9 have been inferior steel in early Italian slides, which has long since been fixed and poor magazines made by Checkmate. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Beretta's adoption. Some think that they are smarter than everyone associated with JSSAP, NATO and the DOD and maintain that the 1911 in .45 is optimum for modern combat. Its a great handgun and it served well, but its no longer ideal for modern combat. Some might say that elite units are using a finite number of 1911's in WW4....I would remind those people that these units have almost unlimited restrictions/resources when it comes to selecting weapons and personal preference counts in this instance. What these units do is hardly an indication of what the big army will do or should do. Im not sure why anyone would want to use a single stack 1911 when you could use a Mk23, but you should defend your life with whatever you feel comfortable with. The 1911 served well, but its time has come and gone. Nobody was trying to put Eisenhower back on the front lines after WWII....I am a staunch supporter of the 9mm cartridge. When used with modern JHP ammo, its an extremely effective manstopper. With FMJ bullets, its inferior to .45 ACP....though shot placement is more important than caliber. That being said, 9mm FMJ is adequate for modern military sidearms. Actually hitting a moving target with a handgun during the fog of war is a very difficult feat. Using the pistol to provide suppressive fire so you can flee is a more effective use of the weapon. At point blank ranges, 9mm FMJ bullets have acceptible lethality....which is the only distance you are likely to connect at, they are just fine. Obviously a .50 AE provides better lethality, but the 9mm is an excellent compromise for regular soldiers. There was also the insinuation that the Italian govt pressured the DoD to adopt the M9 over the Sig or loose Aviano AFB*one of the few stealth capable bases and strategically significant even today*. They were eventually vindicated in court, but I find it suspect that they were able to under bid SiG by 1.00. Irreguardless, the M9 has performed well in combat, despite debates surrounding caliber. Its adoption by many nations further supports its excellency. Opinion,nostalgia and enthusiasm don't make for an effective weapon. The question of the M9 is answered by its performance. Replacing it with another 9mm handgun would be senseless.....The military likes it so much that it has been upgraded to the M9A1 which will likely serve for years to come.....

Very well put, this is the best defense of the Beretta I've ever read.  I own a 92FS and have several thousand rds thru it with nary a jam.  The 92 is a big 9mm, but IMHO, it is the best on the market, bar none.  If troops were issued some good JHP ammo, the whole stopping power debate would be mute.  The Beretta 92 was the gun that de-throned the 1911 and I think that is where much of the hate for it stems from.  Jeff Cooper and all of his followers should just get over it.  BTW, I liked Col Cooper alot, just not his 9mm bashing.

Quoted: The FN P35 was entered in the original JSSAP tests, which predated the first XM9 trails, and was run by Jack Robbins and the Air Force. It did poorly IIRC according to their posted results, but I do not recall exactly which tests it failed. (JSSAP also designed, with Hornady's help, a new FMJ bullet that I still believe is a better one than the RN variety) Mucho politics, money, and backstabbing went on during the various trials, but IMO the best two guns won...the M92F and the Sig 226. While I am a big HP fan, I have never seen a P35 out of the box and totally unmodified that could hold a candle to either the 92 or 226 in reliability. Some decent history (without many details on test procedures) here... www.coolgunsite.com/comm_pistols/beretta92.htm

I remember the development of that bullet.  Mucho better than the round nose.

The HP-35 was only in the original JSSAP tests and not the XM-9 tests.  By all accounts, the JSSAP requirements were poorly thought out.  It required a single vendor to provide two different pistols, one large and one small.  The procurment was unworkable, not in any small part to the politics of the day.

The FN DA variant of the BHP was entered in the XM9 trials.  FN withdrew early.  The gun wasn't ready for prime time supposedly.  

Also the link perpetuates the theory that the cost of the pistol is somehow separate from the cost of the contract, which is what contract award is based on.  Beretta's bid for the contract was over three million dollars LESS than Sig.  It doesn't matter what the cost of one individual item is in a contract, when the contract covers several items (like the XM9).  Beretta could have easily assigned a cost of $176.32 to each pistol (one cent less than Sig) and simply charged more for the spares and still would have entered the same bid of $3 MILLION less than Sig.  Since both guns passed the tests, the decision is based on "contract price".  Beretta was $3,000,000 cheaper than Sig.  

The contract price is all that matters in real life, because that's what the taxpayer pays for the item.  Not the mythical unit price for an individual item under that contract.  The idea that the Sig cost less is completely wrong.  If you bought a Sig at the gun shop and you needed two extra mags and a holster and  the package costs you $200 more than the same package from Beretta, which package has the higher price?  Would it matter to you if the Sig was cheaper, but the mags and holster cost more?  If you pay $200 more for a package, how is that package cheaper?  You're right, it's not.  It's a more expensive package.  Just like the Sig bid on the XM9 contract was higher than Beretta.

People can hate Berettas all they want for replacing the M1911, but the idea that they cost more is a lie.  Buying the Beretta saved the US $3,000,000.  No matter what kind of modern math you use, the Beretta was a lower bid than the Sig.  That's the fact, the Beretta bid was LOWER.  All the crying in the world, nor the selective analysis of the price of one item covered by the whole contract, will change that fact.  

WW4 has given us lots of useful information about which or our weapons work, and which ones don't. The only weapon that has been consistantly panned is the M249 SAW, not the Beretta M9.
The M9 has performed extremely well, especially in desert conditions. Loose tolerances and robust design has allowed for an extremely rugged and reliable handgun in all conditions. The only problems reported in the research are twofold.

1. Checkmate magazines. Many of these magazines are "no-go" in that they are poorly constructed with inferior components.*An example of DoD procurement methods, if you sell shit you can sell it cheap and underbid the competition* The biggest problem with the Checkmate magazine is the rough finish, which traps debris, especially sand in the body and binds the magazine causing failures, weak springs and out of spec bodies don't help eiether.

2. Caliber. The caliber question came up over and over again throughout several reports. Your average 19 year old grunt has little to no understanding of terminal ballistics, or the properties thereof. Try explaining fragmentation to your average NG troop and you will quickly understand.
The 9mm M882 FMJ bullet can hardly be considered a "strike" against the Beretta M9. Having a percieved ineffective bullet doesn't make for an unreliable weapon.

The Beretta has been upgraded to A1 spec, including new magazines. If it wasn't satisfactory, it would be replaced, not upgraded. The M9 has also been adopted all over the world where it has functioned quite well. For a time, it was the most popular handgun in the world and this isn't because of Lethal Weapon, its because its an extremely effective handgun.

Did Glock ever make it into these trials?

I'm suprised more countries including the United States don't use the Glock. It's simplistic, very reliable, controlable, and relatively cheap.

Quoted: I'm suprised more countries including the United States don't use the Glock. It's simplistic, very reliable, controlable, and relatively cheap.

That many 19 year olds and a gun with no safety?  I think the Army knows what its doing.

You wouldn't want some dick swinging private to shoot himself ;-)

Say it with me"L-A-W-S-U-I-T".

Did the Ruger P-90 get a chance at the evaluations?

Quoted: Did Glock ever make it into these trials?

No.  The XM9 trials consisted of:
Beretta 92SB-F
Sig P226
Steyr GB
Colt SSP
FN DA
HKP7M13
Walther P88
S&W 459

Did the Ruger P-90 get a chance at the evaluations?

No, the trials were started in 1983.  The P90 wasn't around then.

The Ruger P85 was in the XM-10 trials in 1988.  The XM10 trials consisted of:
Beretta M9
Sig P226
Ruger P85
S&W 459

In 1989 the US Army announced that the Beretta won those trials as well.  Since the M9 was already type-classified, there was no "M10".  

The Sig P228 won the trials for the compact service pistol with the P228 becoming the M11.

I love my 92 but I like my CZ75B and P01 better. There is a lot of good pistols out there and no matter which one won the contract half of us would say another one should have one. I think the Glock would be a great pistol personaly and the HK .45 and a good 1911 and several others.